Our opposition to this legislation stems from these reasons:

1. If enacted, the legislation would cause conflict and confusion between Police operations and closely related services in crime control, including the functions of education, corrections, welfare, and traffic control.

2. It would result in a major reversal in the trend toward citizen participation and involvement in District Government affairs provided under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967.

3. The bills would create waste and inefficiency through requiring duplication of supporting services, such as personnel, purchasing, and computer equipment by setting up a costly overhead organization duplicating many existing support services in the D.C. Government.

4. Considerable coordination of the police operations (involving all five forces covered by the pending bills) with other related functions such as civil defense, fire protection corrections, the courts, and activities of the Attorney General is being developed through the recent establishment of a post of Director of Public Safety for the District.

In addition, one of the key elements in the efforts of our new District Government to roll back the city's appalling crime rate is improvement in police-community relations. An essential factor in strengthening this partnership against crime is a police force that is truly a part of the community it serves. To develop maximum mutual respect and cooperation in this area, the citizens must be able to think of the neighborhood policeman as their officer and the Department as their police. force.

Gentlemen, a police department is an integral part of any municipal government. The operations and services of the police force are interwoven with those of the other city agencies.

This coordinated effort is essential to the well-being of our capital city-to the residents, the workers from the neighboring suburbs, the business community, and the visitors.

The pending bills, however, would divide responsibility, and thus weaken the city government's ability to provide comprehensive protection and services for the citizens.

Enactment of the legislation before this committee would, in our opinion, hamper-not help the joint efforts by Congress, the President, and the new District Government to make this the best city in the world.

Therefore, for these reasons, I strongly recommend that this committee disapprove the pending bills.

May I again thank this committee for the opportunity to give our views on this vital question.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two other comments. One is that I firmly believe, as does the Commissioner, that your new Government in the District of Columbia has adequately demonstrated to the citizens and to you in the last few months its ability to operate its Police Department, to coordinate its efforts and the very trying times we have had in the District of Columbia in the months of May and June.

I think the fact that we were able to take care of it as well as we did adequately demonstrates we have the total capability to operate these departments and coordinate with the other agencies.

The second comment I would like to make is in relation to the force itself. I think certain factors should be brought to the committee's attention as far as the morale of the Department and the effectiveness of that Department is concerned. Chief Layton is here and can substantiate to you the fact that we have substantially reduced the resignation rate in the Department, and the rate of our policemen going to other agencies. We have substantially reduced the vacancy factor and within the next two or three weeks we will be at total strength. As of last week we were down to 82 vacancies compared to 385 back in November. We are recruiting at the rate of almost 75 net per month. We have over 200 in the pipeline, processed for appointment.

I think these factors indicate that we are able to recruit. We have a strong Department, and that Department has the full support and cooperation of the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and we feel that we can adequately operate that Department.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fletcher, on that subject, I notice that you have been able to get some encouragement as to new recruitments. Have you let the standards down, or do you require the same examination?

Mr. FLETCHER. The same standards, sir. We have not reduced the standards one bit.

The CHAIRMAN. The same physical and mental standards?
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir.

PURPOSE OF BILL

The CHAIRMAN. I believe a number of people must have the wrong impression, or at least I have the wrong impression. I do not think there is anyone on this committee who wants to tear up the White House Police Department or the city Police Department.

I have not been in favor of the actions which have already been taken in moving valuable policemen from one agency to another and consolidating precincts at a time when police should be better acquainted with the people where he is patrolling.

Your statement sounds as though we were advocating tearing up the Police Department. I thought the bill we introduced here was to have a man at the top to coordinate all the Departments together in their present status, and in case of emergency or a real riot we would have somebody at the top who could be held responsible and handle all police orders and not let the criminals burn up the city before all the police could get together. That was the idea I had in mind, not to tear down any Department.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe my statement indicated or used the term "tear down." My statement indicated that we would be opposed on the basis that there would be inefficiency and waste involved.

The District of Columbia Government must coordinate many activities in terms of civil disturbances and fighting of crime.

There are other factors which must be coordinated simultaneously in the Department.

The CHAIRMAN. Would this new legislation prevent you from doing that?

Mr. FLETCHER. In my opinion, yes, because the Commissioner would not have control of the Police Department necessary to provide adequate and proper cooperation of all of the efforts of the District Government to fight these problems.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Police Chief have this authority now, or does the Council?

Mr. FLETCHER. I beg your pardon?

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Council have the power now, or the Commissioner, or the Chief of Police?

Mr. FLETCHER. The Commissioner has the authority to control the Police Department, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is all this I read about that certain people want to handle the Police Department, fire and hire and harass the police more than they are at the present time?

Mr. FLETCHER. Sir, that is not our proposal. That is a proposal from a group of citizens within the District, but it is not the proposal of the District Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whitener.

EFFECT OF BILL

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Fletcher, taking your statement for the Commissioner, I think the statement fails to do any more than generalize. Your first point on page 2 is that it would cause conflict and confusion. How would that happen if you bring all the law enforcement organizations under one umbrella? How do you contemplate that would bring confusion and conflict, for instance, in traffic control?

Mr. FLETCHER. It would be on the basis that we have other agencies of the District of Columbia that are directly related to traffic control. The Police Department and the Department of Highways and Traffic working together very closely under the Commissioner for coordinated efforts in terms of traffic control.

Mr. WHITENER. And you take the view that if this bill were enacted into law immediately the Highway Department would start looking at the police as if they were a foreign government.

Mr. FLETCHER. No, sir, but it would require additional coordination and additional activity.

Mr. WHITENER. What additional coordination?

Mr. FLETCHER. On the basis you would have two different agencies to work together whereas now you have one now, the Commissioner, who is responsible for the coordinated activity under the one control, which is the purpose of the Reorganization Act. The Commissioner makes the joint decisions relative to it.

Mr. WHITENER. You think that unless you had someone like the Commissioner that there could not be any coordination or cooperation! Mr. FLETCHER. Obviously if it were put together we would have to work with it. What I am saying is that it would add to conflict and confusion by having to go through two separate agencies to provide that work.

Mr. WHITENER. I cannot follow you on that because you have two separate agencies now. You have the President of the United States, who is supposed to be the top dog in the running of all governmental

affairs, and it seems to me if there is any failure to operate, there is some Executive authority already in the Government which could bring somebody to task if they did not cooperate.

Mr. FLETCHER. That is very true, sir. I do not understand what you would gain by providing or what you would be solving.

Mr. WHITENER. Your statement is that it would create confusion and conflict, which I take it you are saving would cause insoluble conflict and confusion unless the Commissioner of the District could bring them together.

Mr. FLETCHER. I did not say insoluble, sir. I said it would add to or cause conflict or confusion. I think it would.

Mr. WHITENER. I still do not understand how you can make that statement unless you are implying that there is no greater authority in Government than the Commissioner of the District of Columbia. Mr. FLETCHER. Sir, I am not implying that at all. I am implying when you have two separate agencies reporting to two separate authorities, handling the work in the same area where you have to have coordination, it is obviously in my opinion better to have it under one control rather than under separate control. I am not convinced that you would have better traffic control or better welfare and all these other things if you combined the metropolitan police with the park police, for example, and so on.

Mr. WHITENER. How do you contemplate it would cause conflict and confusion in the function of education?

Mr. FLETCHER. On the basis that we have a strong relationship with the school system, involving training, involving in-service training, working with children, and so on, where the agencies work together under the budget that is presented to Congress, which comes from the Commissioner, involving education as well as police. We look to the solution of these problems on a joint basis at the time we put the budget together. There are many joint relationships.

Mr. WHITENER. The budget also goes through the Congress.
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. It does not seem to me that the Congress would tolerate conflict and confusion any more than a Commissioner would. I do not follow your statement that it would create such conflict and confusion in the education program.

Mr. FLETCHER. I think it would, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. You say it would cause conflict and confusion in corrections?

Mr. FLETCHER. There is a very close relationship between the function of correction and the function of law enforcement. The prime purpose of correction should be to reduce, for example, recidivism, to return people who have been incarcerated back to a useful life. It requires good and substantial coordination and cooperation between the function of correction and the function of law enforcement. We want to be able to quickly resolve any differences. We want to be able to control the decision-making process that relates to the Department of Corrections and the Police Department.

Mr. WHITENER. We have had extensive hearings here about crime, and recidivism. As I remember the testimony from Mr. Murphy,

your Commissioner of Public Safety, and others, they have not found any suitable way to get with the courts on the question of punishment and the separation of powers.

It might well be that a Commissioner who has a closer affiliation. with the Congress may be able to get a little closer to some of these judges whose salaries are fixed by the Congress. I do not follow your argument there.

Mr. FLETCHER. I would think, sir, that Congress' actions on that would be the same whether you had the Police Department under the Commissioner or you had it under a separate Commissioner. The Congress' actions relative to courts would be the same.

Mr. WHITENER. I think if you stay around here a while you might change your mind about that. How would it cause confusion and conflict in the Welfare Program?

Mr. FLETCHER. Here again, sir, we feel that the fighting of crime is a product of many activities in many agencies. Some of the base causes of crime are in fact unemployment, deprivation, and so on. We feel a coordinated effort to give people a decent income and a decent home and so on is one of the best ways to fight crime. We feel this is again a coordinative effort that should be under one control rather than separate controls.

Mr. WHITENER. Your second objection, that it would result in a major reversal in the trend of citizens' participation and involvement in District Government and affairs: You mean it might cause a reversal of an organization which had among its membership the Vice Chairman of the Council, passing resolutions that it is justifiable homicide to shoot a police officer in cold blood; is that what it will reverse?

Mr. FLETCHER. No, sir. I think whether either action is taken, it would have an effect on that. I do believe, however, that the Commissioner of the District of Columbia is directly involved with citizen. participation. It is one of the reasons, I think, for the reorganization, to provide a more direct channel of communication with the citizens of the District and the Government of the District of Columbia. We are constantly working on citizen participation. Many of those contacts deal with police problems, as well as housing, welfare and other problems. It would seem to us it would be better to have a citizen participation under one control rather than a split control.

Mr. WHITENER. You think it might reverse the trend of certain elements in certain sections of the city demanding that they make the decision as to which police officers will be assigned to their precincts. Is that the sort of thing you apprehend it might reverse?

Mr. FLETCHER. I think it would provide, which is what the Commissioner is striving for, better police-community relations. It is also something that Chief Layton is striving for. We need good community relations as well as community relations in all other facets of the District Government. We much work closely with the people of the District. The manner in which it is done is one we have to resolve with the district and the people of the District.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take too much time. Maybe later I can ask other questions.

The CHAIRMAN. On that subject, don't you think these people ought to be taught to work with the Congress a little and not just with the